tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4601541347580811896..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Hooray, Mormons!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22376546759657776522010-06-02T23:22:24.439-05:002010-06-02T23:22:24.439-05:00Seth, I'll look into the New Order Mormons, it...Seth, I'll look into the New Order Mormons, it sounds pretty interesting. I can completely understand your position. If you have had personal experiences that culminate into faith, then that sounds like a good enough reason to believe, to me. All I would add to this would be a deep look into other possible causes for these experiences. It sounds like you have done plenty of this, though. I just cannot say that I have had any revealing experiences, and this is not for a lack of looking. I am not, however, one to write off another person's experiences. They aren't mine, after all. I just conclude, for myself, that when presented with the specific LDS god claim, I come out yet again as an atheist.<br /><br />I also understand the "Utah faithful Mormon" stereotype in this culture. Most of the people that I know, who are Mormon, have a shell that they wear most of the time, a shell of Mormon, I guess. But once I get to know them, I usually find that under the shell is a thinking person with unique ideas concerning the LDS church. So I will assume that you are not alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19577555967597953112010-06-02T11:53:45.154-05:002010-06-02T11:53:45.154-05:00I then add to this the stuff I mentioned above - h...I then add to this the stuff I mentioned above - how well the theology works, how it matches with my sense of ethics, what sort of good things it is producing - the argument from utility basically.<br /><br />Then I combine that with a strong sense of heritage, family, clan, and history and... yeah... I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.<br /><br />I've had bouts of agnosticism about Mormonism from time to time and worried my wife a bit (who is - by the way, a very open-minded sort herself). I never quite got to the point of atheism - which I often view as irrational, but I played with agnosticism a bit.<br /><br />I wound up concluding that I was Mormon - through and through - and that all this fashionable intellectual angst I'd been putting myself through was rather pretentious. Basically, I got the message loud and clear - "you're a Mormon, get over it."<br /><br />And I did.<br /><br />As for my standing in the LDS Church, I can honestly answer all the questions the bishop asks when interviewing you for worthiness to enter the temple. That seems good enough to me.<br /><br />One of those questions is whether I sustain the leaders of the LDS Church.<br /><br />And I do. Just because I have doubts whether Thomas S. Monson actually talks to God directly, and whether I think the LDS Church has some definite administrative screw ups does not mean that I do not acknowledge their mandate to administer the Church.<br /><br />I think there is a very stereotypical notion in Utah about what a faithful Mormon is supposed to be. But I do not think the stereotype is really supported by actual Mormon scripture. For instance, I do not think that the latest book from Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland being stocked at Deseret Book today automatically represents "the mind and will of the Lord."<br /><br />I am well aware that many faithful Mormons feel this way.<br /><br />I think they are wrong - and verging on misguided idolatry. They substitute a personality cult or devotion to an organization for the true worship of God. I feel fully justified by Mormon scripture in saying this.<br /><br />So I do have doubts, but my loyalty is not really in question. And in a religion were covenant is far more important than formal theology, I think this is the crux of the matter.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39814708480895977992010-06-02T11:53:45.155-05:002010-06-02T11:53:45.155-05:00Kevin, there's a movement out there called &qu...Kevin, there's a movement out there called "New Order Mormons" (Google it). Basically these are Mormons (some of them in significant local leadership positions apparently) who no longer believe the LDS Church's supernatural claims, but still want to affiliate as "Mormon" for either the sake of family, personal identity or heritage, etc. They'll even go to church every Sunday (though they tend to keep their opinions to themselves.<br /><br />Am I a "New Order Mormon?"<br /><br />No, not really. I have aspects of that in my religious life. I certainly have a fierce ethnic sort of loyalty to Mormonism. I feel solidly a part of the clan and am proud of the heritage. I'll get very heated in Internet debates that try to smear Moron history unfairly. Certainly I have a lot of family and friend connections at Church that I would not willingly give up for almost anything. I value what church participation provides me.<br /><br />Now, if that were the ONLY reason I affiliate, then sure, I'd probably qualify as a "NOM."<br /><br />But as you suggested, yes I have had direct personal experiences of the divine in my life that I regard as authentic. Mostly through personal prayer and emotional connection. I feel a very strong connection with a divine Father (and Mother actually).<br /><br />Now, have I considered the possibility of hallucination, stomach upset, etc., like you suggested? Yes I have.<br /><br />Am I absolutely 100% certain of myself here? No I am not. But I definitely consider it more likely than not. I am an intuitive person by nature. I believe that American society tends to overplay its rational side and deny its intuitive emotional and spiritual side. But I try to embrace this aspect of life and it has convinced me quite powerfully of the existence of God. So that's the foundation from which I build.<br /><br />Do I expect this to convince you?<br /><br />No, I'm not that naive. I imagine you'll probably write it off to some of the other possibilities you noted. Whatever, I don't really care. This is authentic to me.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27920401558134361742010-06-02T03:56:09.802-05:002010-06-02T03:56:09.802-05:00Seth,
I was just taking a look back at your commen...Seth,<br />I was just taking a look back at your comments and found this: <br /><br />"What he (god) wants is faith and love. And you can't force those by simply saying "look - here I am - I do exist after all!"<br /><br />How did you come to know that god wants faith and love?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90870675369224746932010-06-02T03:33:59.394-05:002010-06-02T03:33:59.394-05:00Seth, thanks for the reply. I actually love it her...Seth, thanks for the reply. I actually love it here in Utah, even though I am slightly liberal and very atheist. I just love the outdoors more than I dislike religion/the religious. <br /><br />So this is your line that got me thinking: “But other people I respect seem to find it (Mormonism) compelling, so I'm favorably disposed.” I guess that what confuses me about your ideology is that you seem to derive some or all of your faith from the value that you place on other people's faith, even though that faith is based on books that, by your own admission, are questionable. I, too, have respect for my parents and family, but I do know that they are just as fallible as I am. My mother is a Christian, for example, who believes the Bible is inerrant. I have tried to point out to her the problems of this viewpoint, but her faith is stronger than my persuasion. I just don’t think that is enough for me to take her god seriously. My dad is very close to being a Pantheist. I have told him that we already have a name for the Earth, it is called “Earth”, and that he can stop calling it god at any time. Both of my parents are responsible, intelligent and very trustworthy, but that does not mean that I cannot set aside their worldview on creation and/or god. God is either real or not real, regardless of what my parents or anyone else believes. <br /><br />As far as your position on revelation, let me get rid of the human element and just ask this: Why do you believe that God communicates with prophets, or with Joseph Smith, or even with family/friends? Has God spoken with you? And if so, did you factor out all other possible sources (drowsiness, hallucinations, bad Mexican food, etc.) The reason that I ask this is that I could not take another person’s word for it, if that is what you are doing. I have known a lot of people and if any one of these relationships tells me anything, it is that humans can be quite dishonest, for a multitude of reasons. Honestly, I find it much more likely that a “trusted” person is telling me a tall tale as opposed to the creator of the universe communicating with said person.<br /><br />It seems like you have found that the Mormon doctrine fits well within your life, and provides you with something good, whatever that is. I applaud you for this; most people are still searching for it on their death bed. But it does not give you reason to claim that the LDS doctrine is correct in what it claims, any of it. Specifically that there is a god, that he created everything, that he does not sin, that he gave us “free will”, etc. Taking life cues from a book is one thing; being a part of a religion that believes, as doctrine, that the leader of this religion receives revelation from the creator of everything is something completely different. I am positive that if I polled all of the Mormons that I know, I would get a near unanimous response that you are an apostate. I don’t mean any offense by that, I just know that anyone who takes the legitimacy of the LDS church into question cannot be in good standing. Like I said in my previous post, you don’t seem like the typical Mormon. Are you sure you aren’t just an atheist that grew up in Utah??<br /><br />Just another quick question: Do you think there are consequences for my not believing in a god? What do you think they are, if there are any?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14572122802323731512010-06-01T14:20:30.732-05:002010-06-01T14:20:30.732-05:00As for why I'm favorably disposed to modern LD...As for why I'm favorably disposed to modern LDS authorities being "true prophets," there are a few reasons.<br /><br />First, it's what I grew up with. Kind of the default setting. My parents believed it, and I deeply respect my parents and acknowledge them as deep and intelligent people - not easily taken in by just any dumb idea. Then there have been the beliefs of many of my friends and acquaintances whom I also trust. Good people, smart, honest, and fully possessed of critical thinking skills.<br /><br />Of course that's not enough - but it's where I started anyway. From that basis, I did my own study. I've read through the scriptures and studied Mormon theology more than most people who belong to that religion. I'm kind of immersed in it. But at the same time I've pursued undergraduate and graduate studies in the broader world - so I've been able to observe for myself how Mormon theology holds up when exposed to the broader context of world thought and history.<br /><br />It holds up very well. I've studied science, history, politics, art, anthropology, and found that all of it fits in well, and finds a context within Mormon theology. The system is just plain useful. Which is why I continue to have confidence in it.<br /><br />As for Joseph Smith and early prophets, I'm a student of history and the history on Joseph Smith is almost never taught in full context and without a huge amount of prejudice on the part of those telling his story. When it comes to Joseph Smith - everyone has an angle and everyone has an ulterior motive. Smart-mouthed atheist bloggers and sanctimonious Mormon seminary students alike.<br /><br />I don't trust either narrative, and had to read about it myself. I have been pleased with the result. Joseph Smith is thoroughly controversial and breaks the mold repeatedly. This appeals to me. And I like his metaphysical ideas. Regardless of what you think of his personal life (which I think is waay overstated), his theology was pretty solid. I've found it robust as a framework and worldview. Same with Mormon scripture generally.<br /><br />So basically, I've tested the stuff in life and found it more than up to the job.<br /><br />At present, I'm agnostic on the legitimacy of many aspects of the LDS Church, but that's merely because I've received no particular conviction of them as of yet. But other people I respect seem to find it compelling, so I'm favorably disposed. But that's about it.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5892536728351066082010-06-01T09:31:22.405-05:002010-06-01T09:31:22.405-05:00Hi Kevin. I spent high school and undergrad in Pro...Hi Kevin. I spent high school and undergrad in Provo. While I consider Utah my homeland, I must say the political culture didn't really agree with me. It's nice to be out. Now to your questions...<br /><br />The last question is easiest to answer, so I'll start there.<br /><br />I don't believe in the concept of inerrancy for anything. I feel it's an Evangelical Christian concept that many Mormons have borrowed and slapped onto their own religion. But I think it's a bad fit.<br /><br />The Book of Mormon for instance has several passages where the author admits to possibly having missed something important, or not said something in the best way it could have been said, or even making outright mistakes.<br /><br />I feel that any time you have revelation - it is composed of an interface of two parts: the divine, and the human. And one of those parts is always going to be flawed under my worldview. God can always say something perfect, but it winds up filtered through a flawed human interface. Even human language is fundamentally flawed. Any student of languages knows that some concepts are easier to express in some languages than others. Sometimes there simply isn't a good word for what the divine is trying to say. Even our very language fails us. How much moreso when you combine that with human agendas, fears, insecurities, and just plain carelessness.<br /><br />I think it's an outright miracle that a document as old as the Bible survived as intact as it did. But I don't consider the book inerrant.<br /><br />Same for Mormon scripture. It was all filtered through the best efforts and mind of Joseph Smith. I respect him and the book, but I harbor no delusions that either are perfect.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16796110529693173072010-05-31T22:22:35.030-05:002010-05-31T22:22:35.030-05:00Seth,
So you are inclined to believe that the prop...Seth,<br />So you are inclined to believe that the prophet of the LDS church receives revelation from God. What makes you favorably disposed to believe that this revelation takes place for Mr. Monson? The only reasons that I can think of to believe this would be that you have had revelation from God that it is true, or that you are simply taking the church's word for it. In fact, this applies to all previous mormon prophets, including Joseph Smith himself. Can you explain to me why, exactly, you believe that another man receives the word of God directly? My other question follows up on this: Do you think that these revelations, received by any previous or the current LDS prophet, are the inerrant words of God?<br /><br />I apologize for all of these questions, all at once. I live in the LDS mecca (Utah County) and I am not used to Mormons of your caliber, honestly. You make a (relatively) compelling case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58736706446984728182010-05-31T11:19:42.933-05:002010-05-31T11:19:42.933-05:00Kevin, I'm actually rather agnostic about the ...Kevin, I'm actually rather agnostic about the modern LDS Church's claims to direct face-to-face revelation. I'm favorably disposed to the idea that current LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson has seen God and receives revelations from him (and they wouldn't have to be "face-to-face" in my mind). But "favorably disposed" about describes the extent of my feelings on the matter.<br /><br />Let's just say that I'm more jazzed about Mormon scripture and past prophets than I am about current ones.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1257450695128736282010-05-31T02:59:03.494-05:002010-05-31T02:59:03.494-05:00Seth,
I am having a hard time understanding your p...Seth,<br />I am having a hard time understanding your point. Arguing the specifics of Mormonism is fruitless, in my opinion, if you do not lay the groundwork of your foundational principles first. So I have a question for you: Do you believe the LDS position that Thomas Monson, the president of the church, is a current day prophet? Specifically, do you believe that God communicates directly with him, as two humans would communicate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49336634871664681812010-04-22T12:46:55.281-05:002010-04-22T12:46:55.281-05:00Seth R,
Would/Could you write to me at b.austin85@...Seth R,<br />Would/Could you write to me at b.austin85@googlemail.com? I massively disagree with this reasoning, but you are thoughtful and I would like to debate these points with you - but I'm not keen to silt up this page with more and more posts... <br />Regards,<br />BUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05446938238150186569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40484597823146109852010-04-21T13:12:43.438-05:002010-04-21T13:12:43.438-05:00Thanks for the compliments Ben (bit back-handed, b...Thanks for the compliments Ben (bit back-handed, but I'll take it anyway).<br /><br />I wasn't really satisfied with that aspect of the argument either - why does God intervene sometimes?<br /><br />The pattern of Mormon scripture - biblical and otherwise, is that God intervenes when invited to do so - in the context of a covenant relationship (like how Israel made promises to God, and he likewise made promises to them). Other than that context, the God of scripture appears fairly hands-off.<br /><br />I don't mean this as an airtight explanation. I just thought I'd put in that additional idea - since it seems to be the scriptural pattern.<br /><br />As for evidence of God - people who believe do consider themselves to be operating on evidence. Just not evidence that will force acknowledgment from anyone else. A person can have personal experience of God and religion that cannot be easily explained to others compellingly, yet remains compelling to the person who experiences it.<br /><br />You grow up in this religion. You test its teachings and principles against the other things you learn in life. You do the day-by-day legwork of integrating the religious paradigm into everything else you learn from school career, and life in general. You witness firsthand how well the paradigm works. You have an emotional connection - which also matters. Other people I know receive more than that, and actually witness miracles firsthand.<br /><br />That's more than just a warm fuzzy feeling. It's quite compelling to the person who has it. But it's not going to automatically convince anyone else.<br /><br />The kind of evidence I always hear atheists calling for is the kind that will be compelling to anyone who isn't already involved.<br /><br />But as I stated earlier, this kind of evidence would be pointless anyway. Just knowing that God exists doesn't mean you have faith. It doesn't mean you love him. It doesn't even mean you're going to obey him. That's why I said that God coming down and doing something flashy, like raising up a magic floating fortress of doom in the sky over Iceland would make little appreciable difference for the state of human faith. Those who were inclined to have faith in God in the first place would take the event as an affirmation of their faith and remain more or less as they are now. Those who were not inclined to have faith in God wouldn't change much either. They might be temporarily cowed and intimidated. But once the novelty of the event wore off, they'd get used to the idea and go back to business as usual.<br /><br />Last year's summer special-effect blockbuster. Here today, gone tomorrow - and ultimately nobody cares in the long run.<br /><br />Which is pretty much how God's miracles were treated in the story of Moses leading Israel through the desert.<br /><br />Hell, these guys supposedly had a freaking pillar of fire hovering over them every night. Water magically bursting out of rocks, whole seas moving out of the way, food magically appearing every day.<br /><br />And they still didn't behave themselves.<br /><br />The miracles ultimately had no power to change what people are at their core. The faithless remained faithless, no matter how many divine demonstrations of power God provided. And the faithful would have been faithful with or without them.<br /><br />This is why I maintain that hard courtroom-style proof is really quite irrelevant to faith. Having it wouldn't change your life much, and it wouldn't change mine either.<br /><br />Ultimately, God doesn't give two straws if you intellectually assent to the idea that he exists.<br /><br />What he wants is faith and love. And you can't force those by simply saying "look - here I am - I do exist after all!"<br /><br />If I prove to you I exist - does that mean you're going to promise to serve me for eternity? Or even the next two weeks?<br /><br />Which is why I have concluded that the sort of evidence being asked for here is really quite beside the point. A non-sequitur basically.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1164043533751748862010-04-21T08:53:31.534-05:002010-04-21T08:53:31.534-05:00This was one of the most interesting threads I'...This was one of the most interesting threads I've read on the subject. <br /><br />I've just watched someone start with a relatively intelligent ('relatively' being the critical word here) look at the thorny problem of free-will, alongside an effort at attempting to demonstrate the inherent necessity of a God's existence and of 'his' "omnipotence" existing simultaneously with perpetual non-interference... <br /><br />...then move onto saying this God interferes sometimes (but with contemporary cases unspecified, and the contradiction of his own argument un-noted)... <br /><br />... and gradually descend to saying proof of God is irrelevant (!) with a glorious non-sequitur about poetry and that one can just pick and choose which bits of the Bible are true arbitrarily after all, ...into the totally faith-dependent drivel, and finally irrelevant arguments regarding the honesty of Joseph Smith (irrelevant in the context of demonstrating the existence of God & the truth of the Bible - of which, there remains, no evidence). <br /><br />What the whole thread highlights, to me, is an intelligent man attempting far more intelligent, convoluted and calm efforts than the average religious person to try and persuade/preach something - that Joseph Smith was given privileged access to evidence - that only faith actually sustains. <br /><br />If you're going to preach that we all willed, pre-conception, to come into being via 'Heaven', you're going to have come up with some motherfucking impressive evidence - Faith is not stronger ground than evidence for determining truth, and in turn belief. If you can't bite that bullet, give it a rest.<br /><br />All a bit of a shame in a way as Seth R is clearly an intelligent guy and could do a lot more good applying that intelligence elsewhere. I don't intend to be patronising, but it's... true.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05446938238150186569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40452565607203345492010-04-19T11:30:10.081-05:002010-04-19T11:30:10.081-05:00See this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkK...See this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKblIMfmjI<br /><br />The Mormons are pushing it hard from today until May 3--Facebook has some instructions for Mormons on what to say to promote this video and get it on the front page of YouTube for as many days as possible.<br /><br />The instructions can be searched for with the terms "The Book of Mormon/YouTube Challenge" on Facebook.<br /><br />They are trying to manipulate YouTube into getting them converts / staying on the "Featured Videos" listing on the front page so everyone sees it. I'd like to see some rationally-minded people knock this ridiculous crap down a notch or two.Sethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07153460631191908601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10934779328888444932010-02-12T14:45:51.122-06:002010-02-12T14:45:51.122-06:00Michael
Free Will? a wife have the right to murd...Michael <br /><br />Free Will? a wife have the right to murder, lie, steal from her husband, whenever?<br /><br />Who's going to be the survivors, those with the Free Will for Righteousness or those with the Free will to Murder whoever, wherever, whenever, the Stalins, Hitlers,Saddams, etc. when they meet you, should they kill you then what. The child rapist, whats wrong just execising free will.<br /><br />Anybody can say or write anything, questions is can they demonstrate their bottom line world view be it political, religious or scientific with a blank piece of paper!<br /><br />Otherwise it just your word against someone elses! <br /><br />Whitter, CaMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018994335424609839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73709908792220549162010-01-06T08:37:08.609-06:002010-01-06T08:37:08.609-06:00@ Philosopher's Mess
Didn't you hear? Th...@ Philosopher's Mess<br /><br />Didn't you hear? Those sins are soooo 6th century. There is a <a rel="nofollow">whole new list</a> of sins for us to engage in now.<br /><br />As to your comment, there is no way that I wish God to act as there is no God. Pointing out inconsistencies in someones definition of God is not the same as wishing attributes to said deity. You would do well to recognize the difference.Question Everythinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04116650679421736815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20174023355622296972009-12-31T14:18:09.141-06:002009-12-31T14:18:09.141-06:00@ everyone
thousands of words of speculative nons...@ everyone<br /><br />thousands of words of speculative nonsense--ah why I love this show and blog!<br /><br />It's a pretty ugly tactic to try and conflate somone's argument with child molestation, but something your own genus of atheists just seem unable to avoid...and it was great to read tracie defending "brain implants", which to me is the epitomy of irony, when atheists lament the horrible authoritarian acts of the gods of Hebrew's text...Seth is right if god acted the way you all claim you wish he would, you all would turn around the next day and start bitching about your loss of sovereignty!<br /><br />And even if god could zone in on one act like child-molestation, wouldn't that provoke the same criticism you are now attempting...wouldn't everyone just be like how horrible is this god who stopped the child molester, but allowed my adult sister to be raped, or shot etc....<br /><br />And you all would be so pissed if god had the audacity to stop you from your own personal evils, the ones you consider small and benign....like greed, sloth, and envy...Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70889992665640434832009-12-15T12:40:15.637-06:002009-12-15T12:40:15.637-06:00I never said you called Hinduism a fraud nor is an...I never said you called Hinduism a fraud nor is anyone confusing the definition of fraud, you are creating a stawman position that no one entertained.<br /><br />You are the one that seems to be reveling in the destruction of the America that isn't mormons and treating other americans like outsiders, exactly how a cult would behave(Why even bring that up? that was just weird...). <br />Nice try, but when it comes to high devotion(part of the definition of cults) the religious dominate(infact isn't that a virtue for you guys?).<br /><br />When it comes down to it I find all religions to be cults, it is just that the biggest cult gets to call all the smaller ones cults.<br /><br />You are not answering the question, the fact that you have a hard time answering this question is very telling.<br />"Say Joseph smith was honestly mistaken just like you think every other none christian prophet was, how would things be different?"<br /><br />This is basically a chance for you to outline what makes Mormonism different from all these other "false" religions. All you have said so far are instances of special pleading(which I have refuted in my previous post) and giving the same justification any other believer in any other religion could give. If there is no difference then I would be justified in placing it in the same category as the others correct?<br /><br />Even if Smith did translate plates I don't see how you can logically conclude HOW he did it(could have been aliens giving him that ability, or Satan, or he was born a psychic and had Remote viewing, ect...) or that Mormons are currently the correct ones(maybe he sent another prophet to the raelians that correct the Mormons?).<br /><br />I could easily answer what would be different if Smith or any other prophet was speaking to a God being, but maybe I just have a better imagination then your entire church.jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06785288534783588539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14093053088760115152009-12-15T12:17:11.704-06:002009-12-15T12:17:11.704-06:00As far as the Book of Abraham is concerned, it has...As far as the Book of Abraham is concerned, it has been demonstrated that an Egyptologist reading of the pictures does not match up with Joseph's interpretation.<br /><br />However, this is not what LDS scholars are claiming. What they state is that a Jewish scribe or redactor used the Egyptian pictograms to tell his own story. This was common practice in the ancient world - plagiarizing the work of another culture and giving it new meaning in the context of your own.<br /><br />When you look at the pictograms from a perspective of how an ancient Canaanite source would have USED the Egyptian pictures, it's actually almost a perfect match with what Joseph Smith said it meant.<br /><br />The quote about the Kinderhook plates that you provide comes from the journal of William Clayton.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Clayton's account gets many of the key facts of the incident wrong, and is so much contradicted by other eyewitness accounts that there really is no basis for relying much on it.<br /><br />"This explains why Joe and Sidney had to flee on horseback in the night to avoid mobs, and fraud charges."<br /><br />No, that would be because we had a bunch of bigots in the neighborhood who didn't like our religious claims and weren't afraid of sabotaging financial institutions and raising frivolous lawsuits as weapons in their religious bigotry.<br /><br />On the other stuff, you obviously either didn't read my responses correctly. For instance, I claimed that Joseph sincerely believed in his own spiritual abilities. Thus, by definition, he couldn't be "scamming" anyone.<br /><br />The other stuff is just you name-calling, which seems to indicate that you don't have a decent response to give. But you may prove me wrong yet.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16789982673231300602009-12-15T12:06:20.473-06:002009-12-15T12:06:20.473-06:00Seth, lying for jesus only on the ignorant.
Er I ...<i>Seth, lying for jesus only on the ignorant.</i><br /><br />Er I should say, it only WORKS on the ignorant.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03385224841513917381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83817990111709487802009-12-15T11:57:45.334-06:002009-12-15T11:57:45.334-06:00Seth, lying for jesus only on the ignorant.
Which...Seth, lying for jesus only on the ignorant.<br /><br /><i>Which you have no proof he did. This is a convenient stick to bash Mormonism with, but it usually shows little understanding of what Joseph was actually doing, or the societal context he was operating in.</i><br /><br />Horseshit.<br /><br /><i>Unless he honestly believes in what he's doing. And Joseph never made more than a bare living wage off this stuff - ever.</i><br /><br />I see, lying and scamming is a-ok. Only steal a living wage and everything is cool with jesus.<br /><br /><i>Why not?</i><br /><br />This is mindwarpingly arrogant. If there was a god to thank, I'd thank him for no longer allowing people like you to control sociaty.<br /><br /><i>The restrictions on coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol were not widely enforced in the LDS Church until the administration of Heber J. Grant in about the 1920s. So you can hardly say that Joseph or anyone else in the church was "denying" these things to "the followers."</i><br /><br />Did he write, whether "inspired" or not, write the doctrine of the "word of wisdom" or not? I don't give a damn if it was or was not activly enforced until the 1920s, it was in place as gods word in 1839, and anyone who ignored it past that is a hipocryt.<br /><br /><i>Joseph never made any money from the Kirtland Safety Society failure. And the entire venture was operated consistently with common financial practices of that day. I have studied the incident in detail and find no evidence of wrongdoing.</i><br /><br />Yes perfectly legal financial practices of the day. This explains why Joe and Sidney had to flee on horseback in the night to avoid mobs, and fraud charges.<br /><br /><i>Which Joseph didn't fall for. He showed interest in them initially, but ended up never attempting to translate them. The end.</i><br /><br />More lies for Jesus?<br /><i><b>I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth. - Josepth Smith</b></i><br /><br /><i>You'll have to be more specific. There seems to be a lot of evidence that, on the contrary, he was quite successful.</i><br /><br />Book. Of. Abraham.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03385224841513917381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4200148409538990592009-12-15T11:21:34.721-06:002009-12-15T11:21:34.721-06:00"A sincere man does not use his godly inspire..."A sincere man does not use his godly inspired influence to fuck 14 year olds girls."<br /><br />Which you have no proof he did. This is a convenient stick to bash Mormonism with, but it usually shows little understanding of what Joseph was actually doing, or the societal context he was operating in.<br /><br /><br />"Doesn't take peoples money in mysticism scams."<br /><br />Unless he honestly believes in what he's doing. And Joseph never made more than a bare living wage off this stuff - ever.<br /><br /><br />"Or order printing presses destroyed."<br /><br />Why not?<br /><br /><br />"Or drink and smoke while using god to deny it to his followers."<br /><br />The restrictions on coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol were not widely enforced in the LDS Church until the administration of Heber J. Grant in about the 1920s. So you can hardly say that Joseph or anyone else in the church was "denying" these things to "the followers."<br /><br /><br />"Or run a fraudulent bank, stealing the savings of hundreds."<br /><br />Joseph never made any money from the Kirtland Safety Society failure. And the entire venture was operated consistently with common financial practices of that day. I have studied the incident in detail and find no evidence of wrongdoing.<br /><br /><br />"Or fall for simple hoaxes such as the kinder hook plates."<br /><br />Which Joseph didn't fall for. He showed interest in them initially, but ended up never attempting to translate them. The end.<br /><br /><br />"Doesn't completely fail at the one thing he supposedly is inspired to do - translate ancient writings."<br /><br />You'll have to be more specific. There seems to be a lot of evidence that, on the contrary, he was quite successful.<br /><br />Maybe you had some examples in mind.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74718410692324348012009-12-15T10:53:04.702-06:002009-12-15T10:53:04.702-06:00A sincere man does not use his godly inspired infl...A sincere man does not use his godly inspired influence to fuck 14 year olds girls.<br /><br />Doesn't take peoples money in mysticism scams.<br /><br />Or order printing presses destroyed.<br /><br />Or drink and smoke while using god to deny it to his followers.<br /><br />Or run a fraudulent bank, stealing the savings of hundreds.<br /><br />Or fall for simple hoaxes such as the kinder hook plates.<br /><br />Doesn't completely fail at the one thing he supposedly is inspired to do - translate ancient writings.<br /><br /><br />As for you Seth, how dishonest can you possibly be? Your words alone here are more then enough condemnation of both your character and your faith.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03385224841513917381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-92128199139651042652009-12-15T10:27:07.417-06:002009-12-15T10:27:07.417-06:00On number 3, if Joseph Smith was simply honestly m...On number 3, if Joseph Smith was simply honestly mistaken?<br /><br />Well, that one is a different matter altogether.<br /><br />I would admit that most of what I said in the previous post is consistent with Joseph being an honestly deluded individual who had a powerful idea that attracted people to his cause.<br /><br />I was just pointing out that the "deliberate liar" or "opportunist" line just seems utterly out of touch with the history.<br /><br />That was my point.<br /><br />I do not believe that Joseph was a fraud in the sense of lying to deliberately and knowingly deceive people.<br /><br />Was he deluded?<br /><br />Well, then the question becomes - "on what topics?"<br /><br />Was he deluded on this aspect of his life's work, or that aspect?<br /><br />Here you just have to give examples, because sweeping blanket statements are unlikely to prove useful.<br /><br />Some members of the LDS Church for example, believed that Joseph was originally a bona fide prophet, but later he fell off the wagon and was no longer a true prophet.<br /><br />It's the "fallen prophet" narrative, and there are plenty of instances in early Church history of people who held this view.<br /><br />I myself played around with the possibility a couple years back and still hold it as a possibility. It's just that I never found any good reasons to really embrace this narrative. The solid proof just isn't there.<br /><br />Sorry, if this is confusing you. But this conversation would have been a lot simpler and open-ended if people here hadn't felt the need to paint him as a deliberate liar who was taking advantage of people for purely personal gain.<br /><br />You'll find that I generally have good relations with atheists who are willing to simply leave open the possibility that Joseph Smith was a sincere, yet somewhat delusional, man and are willing to examine the inherent power and usefulness of the ideas he presented to the world.<br /><br />I have several atheist ex-Mormon friends who are like this, and we generally have pretty polite conversations on the subject.<br /><br />No, what drew me out was the unhinged "liar" accusations that were flying around here. And the implications that anyone who sticks with this religion is either mentally ill, or just an idiot.<br /><br />If people hadn't been picking a fight to begin with, I might not have even bothered butting-in.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34930179451550912242009-12-15T10:25:56.111-06:002009-12-15T10:25:56.111-06:00The Bahá'í faith may make a good analogy as it...The Bahá'í faith may make a good analogy as it was founded in the mid 19th Century (like LDS) by guy who claimed that he was a prophet (like Joe), and is still thriving today. If Baha'u'llah was a fraud or mistaken, then surely the movement would have died when he did, right?<br /><br />etc.kopdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03887294932899817122noreply@blogger.com